@suci1 No, it’s not just my point of view. It’s right there in your reply. Now, your comment about hurting your feelings, that is just your point of view. At no point did I say anything of the sort. Also, I’m not obligated to answer your question. Moreover, I’m wary of you considering your behavior in Anicca: Impermanence or “not-one’s-owness”? I don’t think I can have pleasant conversation with you, so from now on I will ignore you, even if you reply to my possible future comments.
@frankk Sorry, I should be more clear about my question. I have edited my question, so here it is: “However, “perception” in these two texts can’t really refer to one of the five aggregates in its general meaning, can it?”
Usually perception means one of the five aggregates, but I couldn’t help but wondered what “perception” really means in the context of the two texts that I mentioned, which is why I think that “perception” actually means something along the line of contemplation. What’s more, 想 in general also means perception of the five aggregates. Yet, in the context of the two mentioned texts, I think it has an underlying meaning of contemplation. The buddhism-dict.net also translates the term 十想 as “ten kinds of contemplations”. Which is why I got confused. Both @Gabriel and @Nibbanka gave interesting answers, so my confusion about “perception” is now lessened. The Gandhari discourse that @Gabriel posted is also very interesting.